Debunking a Unabomber-lite

So I have a confession to make. I have a bit of a monkey on my back: I argue with extremists on the USENET, a global messaging system that has been in existence since the 80’s. Mostly right-wing extremists (see below), but I’ve also argued for moderation with some extremist liberals, too.

If you watched the John Cleese video from my previous post, then you know that one thing extremists (of any stripe) hate are moderates.

What we have here, for this post, is the response to a post, calling me out in the Subject: line, which quoted extensively from the Unabomber Manifesto — after which he smugly says the equivalent of “take that”.

But as you can see below, what he’d posted are the circular, spinning ravings of an extremist sociopath…and a manic one, at that. This becomes evident as the text is debunked. I’ve preserved enough of the headers so that anyone wanting to find this discussion (and knows their way around the USENET) can see it develop, if it indeed does.

But a word of caution: the USENET can be a dark place, since it is largely unmoderated. It is filled with anonymous trolls, extremists, and other unsavory characters that you certainly wouldn’t want to show your Mom.

To put it succinctly: the USENET isn’t a marketplace of ideas — it is a mosh pit.

Dramatis Personae:
vallor = me.
“gerg” = “sir” Gregory Hall, aka “sir” Homer Hall, aka Neal Warren
“oonoobomber”, “onobomber”, and variations thereof = Ted Kaczynski, “the Unabomber”, aka “Teddy”.

From: vallor <vallor@cultnix.org>
Newsgroups: alt.checkmate,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.penpals,
edm.general,alt.slack,sci.physics
Subject: Yawn. (was Re: Ping Vallor - More Wisdom from Dr. Theodore
Kaczynski…
Date: 17 Jun 2020 05:56:03 GMT
Message-ID: <hktpjiF95oU7@mid.individual.net>
References: <b6rhefdg54ovcifcnoellnk3drrjio8ib2@4ax.com>

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:05:53 -0400, Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
wrote:
> 114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is
> strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and
> his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him
> whose decisions he cannot influence.

Wrong.

Though true for the onobomber -- who was an impotent little
fleeb -- most people can exercise political will, can be
entrepreneurs, etc.

> This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of
> arrogant bureaucrats.

The premise was incorrect, so this is just nonsensical noise.

> It is necessary and inevitable in any
> technologically advanced society.

I should start correcting this like an English essay, and write
with red pen "why?", followed by "-10".

But again, he's giving the conclusion as a premise. (pretty
much circular reasoning)

> The system HAS TO regulate human
> behavior closely in order to function.

Wrong again -- he doesn't back this up, just pulls it out of his
ass.

> At work, people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise
> production would be thrown into chaos.

The onobomber's ideas about what "work" must be like look like
something Karl Marx would come up with in the latter's flawed
ideas.

"Work" is a synergistic process. Onobomber's top-down idea not
only shows he had never been a business owner, it shows that he
had probably never worked a day in his life.

> Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules.

How nice it must be to have lost one's mind -- you can just
state your "conclusions" without premises or argument.

Look, gerg -- a guy making claptrap pronouncements isn't correct
merely because you like the guy. He has to use LOGIC. He has
to state his premises, connect them together with LOGIC, and
then show how they arrive at a conclusion.

Onobomber's thoughts are wheels within wheels, spinning and
spinning.

He's manic in this writing, and hence, a maniac.

> To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level
> bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of
> unfairness due to differences in the way individual
> bureaucrats exercised their discretion.

Once again, a pronouncement. Onobomber gives no reason for his
assertion.

He carries his bowels in his head, and the effluvia he spits out
ends up on the printed page.

> It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be
> eliminated,

So very nice of the onobomber to give us this little bit of
freedom. How thoughtful. But…

> but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large
> organizations is necessary for the functioning of
> industrial-technological society.

Another pronouncement.

If this is supposed to be a logical argument, he's failed. If
he's supposed to be emitting timeless truths that are
self-evident, it's clear that onobomber was gripped with mania.
Because so far, this has been nothing but happy horseshit from a
spinning mind.

So…will the onobomber snap out of it, or will he continue to
spew the ravings of a deranged mind? Let's see.

> The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the
> average person.

This does not follow, because the premises of his argument are
false -- or at best, undiscussed. ooonooobomber felt this
way, and he projected it onto others.

Of course, as we all know, the burden of proof is on
ooonooobomber to back up his arguments. So far, he's been just
making pronouncements in a manic call-to-action(?).

> It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend
> increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that
> make us want to do what the system requires of us.
> (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health"
> programs, etc.)

Weasel words. "It may be". Okay, but why, smart guy? This is
more of the same.

> 115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that
> are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human
> behavior.

Why?

> For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and
> engineers. It can't function without them.

Yes.

> So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields.
> It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the
> bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A
> normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact
> with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things
> that children are trained to do are in natural harmony with
> natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for
> example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits --
> just the sort of things that boys like. But in our society
> children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which
> most do grudgingly.

It's unclear here if ol' Teddy is talking about education in
general or the recent push for STEM. One could assume he has
limited his scope to the United States, but in the author's
deranged state, it's still unclear where in the U.S. he's
talking about, even as he ignores differences in other nations.
It's a sure bet that nutso-bombo has never visited a Waldorf
school.

I will concede, grudgingly, that he does have a point about the
general grind of modern general K-12 education, and I agree that
more time could be spent out in the world with more pastoral
pursuits. Learning how to keep bees, firearms safety, how to
plant a tree, how to grow a garden, how to fly a tail-dragger --
all these, and more, should be available for adolescents to
learn, in a safe and age-appropriate way.

And a lot of them do have these things, but they are
extra-curricular activities.

Alas, for a political animal like human beings to be able to
exercise the franchise, they need to learn at least some classic
general education. History comes to mind -- something that
Teddy seems to ignore in his rant.

> 116. Because of the constant pressure that the system
> exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual
> increase in the number of people who cannot or will not
> adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches,
> youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels,
> radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters
> of various kinds.

I hate to say it but -- non sequitur. The guy has totally gone
off his beam.

"Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to
modify human behavior" <---- nope. Not "the system". What he
senses, and is raving about, is the constant pressure of
reality. This is evolutionary pressure, which doesn't just
include genes, but includes memes, as pioneered by Richard
Dawkins.

It's too bad Teddy didn't have his wits about him -- otherwise,
he might have considered that every "monolithic organization"
can be divided into factions, and those have factions, and so on
all the way down to individual action.

Let's take an example: the Roman Catholic church. Right now
there is a struggle between a "more liberal" Pope vs. the
"staunchly conservative" Curia. Factions.

Then take the Roman Curia -- they have members who are
sympathetic to the Pope, and truly do want to see a
modernization of the church. Another group thinks anything
novel is satanic. So there you go: A further division. A
faction within a faction.

Gentlemen: Just like turtles, it's factions all the way down.
At least, until one gets to the individual -- and even then,
people can be torn in their decision-making. With more and more
information about the various groups, the nuances of human
behavior reveal themselves in the interplay of human relations.

So Teddy the onobomber has no sense of that part of humanity,
because he had certain…disadvantages. He was a maniacal
sociopath.

> 117. In any technologically advanced society the
> individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he
> personally cannot influence to any great extent.

Again, this does not follow. Teddy assumes that "the system"
has totalitarian influence on its "subjects". In fact, it's the
whole of reality that has the most influence, the most
evolutionary pressure. Onobomber is shaking his fist at the
clouds.

Meanwhile, people have bbq's, fly kites, fly aircraft,
etc. completely ignoring Teddy's hangups.

> A technological society cannot be broken down into small,
> autonomous communities, because production depends on the
> cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines.

Such a simplistic view of how society operates. I guess we
should appoint the unabomber as king, and he'll fix everything? ;)
The truth of the matter is that society is more complicated than
perceived by the addle-pated brain in Teddy's noggin. Some
aspects are local, regional, and national.

And he talks about "production" -- same problem, he's thinking
about human achievements like Karl Marx did. What a pity.

> Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO
> be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a
> decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the
> affected individuals has, on the average, only a
> one-millionth share in making the decision.

"on the average". Once again a bit of weasel wording, which
hides a significant deficit: Teddy thinks of "society" as a
monolithic block, and can't conceive that subgroups will join
forces for better political good.
This one wonders how Teddy would feel about all this, if he'd
lived in a place with parliamentary governance.

> What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by
> public officials or corporation executives, or by technical
> specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision
> the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote
> of any one individual to be significant. [17]

Sociopathic ravings. The man has no sense of human
relationships.

> Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the
> major decisions that affect their lives.

Faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

> Their is no conceivable way to remedy this in a
> technologically advanced society.

There's nothing to "remedy" except in the own guy's head.

> The system tries to "solve" this problem by using
> propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been
> made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely
> successful in making people feel better, it would be
> demeaning.

And he finishes up with another pronouncement without backing up
his assertions.

> Love it, learn it, live it, Vallor…
>
> And, thank you Dr. Kaczynski for your insight into the warped
> liberal mind.

I've concluded that, since you idolize a maniacal sociopathic
idiot, you may, indeed, yourself, be a maniacal
sociopathic idiot.

Let's see what you say to (rather boring) debunking of some
rando's crazy-talk.
--
-v https://theproblemisextremism.org
_

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.